The court called the December 2024 decree an attempted rebellion against the constitution.
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison after finding him guilty of leading an insurrection through his short-lived martial law order in December 2024, a ruling that closes a central chapter of the country’s worst political crisis in decades.
The decision by the Seoul Central District Court caps a case that began with Yoon’s late-night declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, and ended his presidency months later through impeachment and removal. Prosecutors said he tried to use troops and police to choke off the National Assembly and detain political opponents, while Yoon argued he acted within presidential authority to protect the nation. The ruling deepens a bitter divide in South Korean politics, with supporters calling him a victim of a politicized prosecution and opponents calling the sentence overdue accountability for a bid to concentrate power by force.
Judge’s findings described a chain of events that unfolded within hours but carried consequences that stretched for more than a year. According to the verdict, Yoon’s martial law decree was issued on the night of Dec. 3, 2024, and was followed by the mobilization of military and police units to the National Assembly complex in Seoul. Lawmakers pushed past security lines and held a vote to nullify the decree, forcing the government to lift martial law about six hours after it began. In a statement after the sentence, Yoon said he was sorry for the turmoil caused by his decision, but he maintained that his intent was to “save the nation,” while criticizing the ruling as unfair and politically driven.
Prosecutors argued the order was more than a symbolic show of force. They said the former president directed security agencies to block lawmakers, seize control of the legislature and detain key political figures, actions that would have cleared the way for unchecked rule beyond normal constitutional limits. The court agreed that the decree and the deployments were not a routine emergency response and instead amounted to an illegal attempt to undermine the constitutional order. Yoon denied that he planned a coup and insisted that the extraordinary step was meant to prevent what he described as political paralysis in an opposition-controlled legislature, but the judges said the plan targeted the heart of democratic governance by trying to neutralize parliament.
The ruling also swept in several senior officials tied to the martial law effort. The court convicted five people alongside Yoon, including former Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison, according to court and media reports. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty for Yoon, but the court imposed a life sentence. South Korea has not carried out an execution in decades, and life terms are often described by officials as the harshest penalty that is regularly enforced. Still, the life sentence for a former president stands out in a country that has seen past leaders convicted of corruption or abuse of power, sometimes followed later by pardons that were justified as gestures of national unity.
The case has traced the arc of a dramatic rise and fall. Yoon, a former top prosecutor who entered politics as an outsider, won the presidency in 2022 and faced persistent conflict with an opposition-led National Assembly. The martial law decree in late 2024 set off immediate national alarm because South Korea’s modern history includes periods of military rule and suppression of dissent, memories that remain politically potent. Within days of the decree, lawmakers moved to impeach him. In April 2025, he was formally removed from office after the constitutional process concluded, according to contemporaneous public records and statements from officials at the time, and special prosecutors later pursued criminal charges tied to the martial law order.
Much of the courtroom battle centered on intent, authority and the meaning of emergency powers. Yoon’s defense said the president has broad discretion to respond to national crises, and they portrayed the decree as a short-lived warning meant to restore order, not a blueprint for dictatorship. Prosecutors said the timing, the targets and the choice to involve armed forces in politics demonstrated a plan to break normal checks and balances. The court said the sequence of actions showed an effort to use state coercion to overpower political opposition and disrupt parliament’s role. The judges also pointed to the danger of setting a precedent in which a leader could deploy security forces against elected lawmakers in the name of political necessity.
Outside the courthouse, the reaction was split and noisy. Supporters gathered with signs and chants that framed Yoon as a conservative leader punished for confronting entrenched rivals, while opponents described the verdict as a defense of democracy after a reckless challenge to civilian rule. The mood reflected a country still locked in political trench warfare, with rival camps distrustful of courts, prosecutors and the media. In his remarks after the verdict, Yoon questioned the judiciary’s independence and urged supporters to stay unified. One of his lawyers said the former president’s words should not be read as a signal that he would abandon his legal options, and the defense indicated it would contest the ruling through appeals.
Procedurally, the case now moves into a new phase. Under South Korean criminal procedure, the defense has a short window to file an appeal, and prosecutors may also seek a tougher sentence, including renewing arguments for capital punishment. The court’s written judgment is expected to be closely examined for how it interprets the boundaries of presidential power and the definition of rebellion in a democratic system. Legal experts say appellate review could take months, with further hearings and filings likely as both sides argue over whether the martial law decree was an abuse of authority or a criminal attempt to override the constitution. Separately, Yoon faces additional legal risk because investigators have examined related allegations, and his political allies have pressed their own inquiries into how the special prosecution was structured and supervised.
The broader political fallout is already reshaping how South Koreans talk about national security and democratic resilience. The six-hour decree sharpened public debate over the role of the military, the independence of police command, and the safeguards that prevent armed forces from being used for domestic political ends. It also deepened suspicion across party lines: conservatives argue the criminal case has been used to settle political scores, while liberals argue that failing to impose a severe punishment would have normalized the idea that a president can threaten parliament when elections do not produce the desired majority. For younger voters, the episode has become a defining political memory, reinforced by televised footage of troops at the legislature and lawmakers rushing to restore parliamentary control.
For many in Seoul, the day of sentencing was a reminder of how quickly political conflict can turn into a test of institutions. Court security tightened around the building, and police managed competing crowds while reporters tracked every movement of the former president’s motorcade. In his post-verdict message, Yoon said he regretted the unrest that followed his order, but he defended his reasoning and described the prosecution as part of a broader struggle over the country’s future direction. “I caused confusion and worry,” he said in a statement, while also insisting he acted out of a desire to protect the nation. Opponents responded that regret without acceptance of responsibility was not enough, and they urged authorities to keep investigating anyone who helped plan the decree.
Yoon remains in custody as his legal team prepares an appeal, and prosecutors have signaled they may challenge the sentence as too lenient. The next milestone is the filing deadline for appeals and the start of appellate review in Seoul, a process expected to set the timetable for the next major court hearing in the case.
Author note: Last updated February 20, 2026.